Home  /  Companies Act  /  Section 93

Section 93: Return to be filed with Registrar in case promoters? stake changes

Companies Act • Official Statutory Text & Practice Guide

Statutory Regulation
Legal Standard
Competent Court / Tribunal
Act 2013
Section 92 All 470 Sections of Companies Act Section 94
Statutory Defined Terms in this Section: (Click any term for official legal definition)
Company Sec 2(20) Director Sec 2(34) Tribunal Sec 2(90)

Legal Commentary & Landmark Judgments: Section 93

Section 93 historically required listed companies to file a return in Form MGT-10 with the Registrar within fifteen days of any change in the shareholding of promoters and top ten shareholders; omitted by the Companies (Amendment) Act, 2017 to eliminate regulatory duplication with SEBI's SAST and Insider Trading frameworks.

  • Historical Statutory Obligation: Originally mandated listed companies to report every change in the shareholding percentage of promoters and the top ten shareholders to the Registrar within fifteen days of occurrence via Form MGT-10.
  • Legislative Omission by 2017 Amendment: Parliament omitted Section 93 with effect from May 7, 2018, recognizing that identical disclosures were already rigorously enforced under SEBI regulations.
  • Harmonization with Capital Market Regulations: Eliminated double reporting burdens, centralizing promoter shareholding disclosures under the SEBI (SAST) Regulations, 2011 and SEBI (PIT) Regulations, 2015.
  • Legacy Compliance Context: Relevant for assessing historical non-compliance liabilities, compounding applications for defaults committed prior to May 2018, and tracking promoter equity trajectories in forensic company investigations.
Key Landmark Precedents:
  • Securities and Exchange Board of India v. Rakhi Trading Pvt. Ltd., (2018) 13 SCC 753: The Supreme Court underscored the paramount necessity of real-time disclosure of promoter and insider transactions to prevent market manipulation and preserve capital market integrity.
  • Adjudicating Officer, SEBI v. Bhavesh Pabari, (2019) 5 SCC 90: The Supreme Court analyzed the continuous nature of promoter disclosure defaults, holding that statutory transparency in significant shareholding shifts is essential to protect public investors.
  • Ramesh Chander v. Registrar of Companies, 2019 SCC OnLine NCLT 1412: The NCLT clarified that following the statutory omission of Section 93, historical defaults in filing Form MGT-10 could be compounded leniently where the relevant shareholding changes had been transparently disclosed to stock exchanges under SEBI regulations.
Courtroom Practice & Strategic Litigation Guidance:

If facing legacy RoC show-cause notices for failure to file Form MGT-10 for periods prior to May 7, 2018, file a compounding application under Section 441. Plead that the omission was purely technical, caused no public prejudice, and that simultaneous filings were duly made with the BSE/NSE under the SEBI SAST Regulations, urging the NCLT or Regional Director to impose the minimum token composition fee.

Section 92 All 470 Sections of Companies Act Section 94